Musings …

Blog

  • Impeach Trump – Limit Investigations to Relevance!

    The Democrats should reduce their message to impeachment only. The House should curtail investigation of his tax returns to 2017 and 2018. Impeachable offenses cannot be found in prior years. I would bet that if the House reduced their demand to only 17 and 18, he would poop his pants.

    We should shut down all investigations, e.g, stuff from before his presidency, that in their natures can’t reveal impeachable offences. We should try to wait to take action to maximize the publics’ being onboard to increase the unlikely possibility that the Senate will go along. Notwithstanding, he must be impeached. We can’t wait until it’s too late to act. Even without public support and guaranteed failure in the Senate, he must be impeached!

    Mueller sent the message that his report as delivered was sufficient. That’s why he gave the narrowly drawn thanks to Barr for releasing what he released. Some investigations may be helpful, but holding up the show for redactions is unnecessary and impeachment stopping. And as they say, without spelling out how, impeachment opens up the availability of investigation resources.

    If investigations were strictly limited only to ones that the public can easily imagine to reveal impeachable offenses, they would be able to focus on the main and only point. Trump would go nuts.

  • Mueller Insulted Barr!

    Mueller’s remarks are very subtle. One point missed in all comments I have heard is the insult to Barr.

    First comments pointed out Mueller’s reference to respect for Barr as respect for Barr. Very shortly after they realized the respect was given in the narrow context of the release of most of the report.

    So far, I have not heard comments, that in the absence of a statement of overall respect for Barr, and in the presence of respect given for the investigators and their agencies, that Mueller is in effect, insulting Barr. This was certainly not missed by Barr.

  • Mueller Wants Congress to Lay Off Seeking Redactions and His Testimony (for the moment.)

    Referring to Barr’s good faith in this narrow context, and especially “made the report largely public” means there is enough available to proceed with impeachment already. To wait until impeachment to use redactions to nail the case down, and for him to testify when it matters.

    “The attorney general then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and to the American people. At one point in time, I requested that certain portions of the report be released and the attorney general preferred to make — preferred to make the entire report public all at once and we appreciate that the attorney general made the report largely public. And I certainly do not question the attorney general’s good faith in that decision.”

    By “in this manner” he means: Before the action clearly called for in my report is taken, i.e., prematurely.

    “Now, I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak to you in this manner…There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. “

  • Mueller Doesn’t Rule Out Collusion!

    Mueller said, “If we had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so,” said Mueller, adding, “Charging the president with a crime is not an option we could consider.”
    Note that although this was said in the context of obstruction, accepting that the evidence for conspiracy is weaker, the statement applies equally to both.

  • Kamala Harris Does Not Have Auto-reply Set Up On Her Designated Campaign Email Address!

    “To contact Kamala Harris For The People, please email info@kamalaharris.org.” I just emailed, “Do you have auto-reply set up on this email address?” My first message to this address was to congratulate her and express appreciation for fine answers to tough issues raised in her first public interview by Rachel Maddow. No auto-reply ever, not yet this time!

    At first I sent several messages to this address expressing the importance of having auto-reply. I felt that this shortcoming was so obvious that if this account was at least being monitored it would have quickly resulted in setting up auto-play ASAP!

    Now I am afraid that this email address is a “Black Hole!”

    Now I am opposed to the candidacy of Kamala Harris on grounds of incompetence. If Ms. Harris does not have the competence to choose a webmaster who has the sense to set up auto-reply, or even knows how to, how can we expect her to select people of plain common sense or competence on matters of critical life-challenging matters affecting our country and its people? Not to mention the world!

    Has she rejected auto-reply herself? Perhaps Ms. Harris does not know what to say in an auto-reply. This is understandable since an auto-reply can feel disingenuos, suspected of being a ‘Black Hole.”

    Does Ms. Harris not have the skill to compose, or choose someone to compose, an effective auto-reply? For example, “You can be sure that every message will be read by me, most likely by one of my staff, and I will be kept informed of the sense of all your messsges. Sometimes a member of my staff will reply to you personally, or possibly I will reply to you personally myself.”

    Is Kamala Harris prepared to expend whatever resources that would be necessary to keep any and all promises made in an auto-reply? An auto-reply is a golden opportunity to show her followers – and anyone interested in communicating with her – that she religiously keeps promises made to those who show interest, who expend their time and energy to reach her.

    I was shocked when I originally failed to get any reply to messages to the Kamala Harris Campaign. Now I am amazed that since then nothing has changed. Is Ms. Harris incompetent in not knowing how to choose a competent web master, not knowing how to draft or select an advisor to draft an appropriate reply to messages addressed to her, or to commit to any and all promises made in her response?

    So which is worst?

    · Not knowing how to select campaign staff (eventually administration personnel) and incapable of judging their work?

    · Unreachable through her campaign email address, perhaps because it is unmonitored?

    · Incapable of drafting, or finding someone capable of drafting an appropriate and excellent reply to people who want to communicate with her?

    · Unwilling or incapable of committing the resources to keep promises made in replies to messages?

    Hard to choose, but in keeping with the season, maybe “Dayenu (Da-ye-nu)” says it all: Any of these would be, on their own, enough to reject Kamala Harris for President!

  • Why did students who had everything: looks, fine grades, popularity, social acceptance, leadership in school society, most any girl, have to torture those who had the least?

    “The shooting forced a national conversation about school safety, SWAT tactics, mental health and gun control…”

    But it has never been addressed, from my recollection, why students who had everything: looks, fine grades, popularity, social acceptance, leadership in school society, most any girl, had to torture those who had the least!

    Caveat: To protect myself from being “Omared,” I want to make clear that all the issues raised in the article are of the highest and critical importance. That raising another unmentioned issue that could be knee-jerkedly taken to imply blame on the victims, is not to reflect badly on the victims of the shootings. They are victims of a society in which having everything is so not enough, that some who do have everything have to pick on the most vulnerable!

    Yahoo News:

    For Columbine survivors, life is about finding ‘that new normal’ 20 years later

  • My Border Deal for Eternity

    What do you think?

    In exchange for comprehensive immigration reform, including all humanitarian dream positions to include:

    • Unlimited protection for Dreamers.

      • Amnesty for all illegals subject to fair examination of criminal activity – illegal left-turns, or even illegal right-turns, will not disqualify.

      • Reasonable path to citizenship – the same residency for legal arrivals.

      • Generous policy for asylum seekers, Whatever I can’t think of at the moment …

      • Well, how about fair requirements for legal immigration from everywhere in the world, especially Mexico.

      In exchange, give him as much for a brick and mortar wall as he wants: 10 billion, 20 billion, 50 billion, 100 billion, whatever.

      It would be worth it! Nancy Pelosy fine with it! In my fantasy, Mitch McConnell and the Senate on board:

      Trump WOULDN’T take it.

  • How will Dishonorable Evangelicals Respond if Kavanaugh is Approved?

    Kavanaugh has just been approved for a floor vote in the Senate. Before its too late, and hopefully he’s rejected, I want to make my prediction before the issue is decided.

    [My analysis applies only to Evangelicals, the dishonorable ones, who have turned a blind eye to all the trepidations of those they support to get what they want.]

    The facile view is that Evangelical Republican supporters of Kavanaugh will out of appreciation to Republicans for getting them what they want so much, rally to their support. That despite having given up their souls.

    I am hoping that they want their souls back, or at least a rationalization to substitute for delusions that they have souls, that I very much doubt that they ever had. If Kavanaugh is put on the Court they will have gotten what they wanted. Hopefully, a guaranteed 5 – 4 on the Court will be enough. In November, some of them will have the chance to get back the appearance of having souls. They cannot be unaware of the stark contradictions between what they have always claimed to stand for. These people did not turn a blind eye to the character and deeds of Donald Trump. I believe that they were, and are exquisitely aware of every violation of themselves, or at least what they stood for – or imagined they stood for – that they made to get their pet desire.

    My hope – from my mouth to Gd’s ear – is that to redeem their souls – or at least to believe again that they have souls – having gotten what they gave them up for, and not having the Court purpose anymore, will withdraw their involvement – or even vote morally – in the upcoming election.

    That, unless they want to gild the lilly to insure a 6 – 3 Court.

    [The above is not a broad brush applying to all Evangelicals, but only to those who have violated the moral positions that they have stood for since time immemorial to get what they want.]

  • The Key to Trump Chanukah Slurring and Much, if Not All, and Possibly All, Else!

    Trump’s slurring during yesterday’s Chanukah message was intentional.

    Please notice that any time Trump says anything that he fears his base might not like, he somehow sullies the message. What “somehow” doesn’t matter. A clear message, e.g, honoring Jews, cannot go unfettered. Much of his 32% would not tolerate plain Trump involvement in celebrating a Jewish holiday. Likewise, honoring Navajo Code Talkers with a clean message would not do with supporters who are unsympathetic to American Indians, or outright antagonistic. Here, an insult to an honored Indian, Pocahontas.

    This same analysis applies whenever Trump says or does anything politically correct that he may be forced by circumstances to say or do. Anything “right” that his base might not like must be taken back immediately, or soon thereafter, i.e., saying intolerable appropriate things after Charlottesville.

    In all these cases, statements or actions offensive to his base must not be allowed to stand. Observe that it is hard to find examples of “politically correct” things being allowed to stand.

    So why not apply this observation going forward or indeed, from yesterday. Why take for granted that Trump’s slurring was a genuine problem with his health, or his teeth, or whatever, and only discussing which one. One should know that  behavior sympathetic to Jews can’t be permitted to stand. Here, slurring, especially exaggerated on “God Bless America” is how he changed the subject from honoring Jews to anything else. The question should be, “Did whatever he did or said function to sully his statement or action?” If the answer is no, this would be the first time, perhaps ever, that he let stand something his supporters didn’t like. If yes, go on to explain how this slurring functions in the context. Note, if the slurring were honest, there would be some additional blight present to sully the message. The slurring having been unanticipated.

    If the question isn’t asked at all it means our pundits haven’t learned from the virtually unbroken patterns since forever with Donald Trump. Unfortunately, our people haven’t figured this out yet, and I fear, just won’t.

    So by slurring his speech in a statement honoring Jews, by acting, or pocketing his dentures, he changed the subject to anything other than honoring Jews. It doesn’t matter how he changed the subject. If he hadn’t somehow, it would set an intolerable precedent.

    There is no doubt, he slurred his speech intentionally.​

  • The Attack on Roy Moore is a Politically Motivated Witch Hunt: Please Stop Denying the Obvious

    ​Denying Roy Moore’s defense, by himself and others, that attacks on him are a witch hunt is a stupid gift to the guilty man, enabling deflection away from the  relevant subject: the APPROPRIATE delving into the history of an already known to be reprehensible person.

    In answer to the witch hunt defense, don’t allow them to put YOU on the defensive, just say, “YES, it is!” Rather, put THEM on the defensive and say, “Yes, and here’s WHY!

    Despite being manifestly disqualified for public office – the list of blatantly obvious reasons is not necessary here – not by things in the past, but by things in the present, and likely to be elected despite that, it is necessary and appropriate to try to stop him.

    The witch hunt accusation is unfair and defense appropriate when, absent genuine cause to investigate a person further, or even at all, a search is made to find whatever trash can be found. This is clearly not the case with Roy Moore. It is an appropriate witch hunt warranted by his known contemporary behavior. By the way, don’t get distracted by, “Witches are women not men.” Say, “OK, warlock hunt if you like.”